Open Rehearsal: The Court Theatre Blog
December 8, 2009
Why IRMA VEP?
by Erik Hellman, co-star of The Mystery of Irma Vep
A post-show discussion of a drag-farce is an interesting event. And during the multiple talk-backs I attended during previews of “Irma Vep” I found myself unequipped to field many of the questions that Court’s erudite audience were asking; questions about the play’s web of references, its spastic plotting and, most frightening of all, the seeming lack of substance. Of course The Ridiculous Theatre Company, where the play premiered, would not have had post-show discussions, they would have been anathema to the spirit of the company, and of Ludlam himself, whose post-show interactions with members of his audience where anything but scholarly. But this is a different time, Court is a different kind of theater company and a changing culture and multiple remounts have made the play a very different animal. “Irma Vep” in the 80’s could coast on its novelty, its subversiveness, and the charisma of its creator. But Ludlam is gone and the play, as it comes to us now, is a bit creaky, a staple of community theatres and colleges and not particularly shocking in its upheaval of culture and gender. It seems to beg the question: why?
Every talkback someone brings it up. The inquiry can take many forms:
“What is the play saying?”
“Why Now?
“What would you say are the central themes?”
“What am I expected to take from this?”
In talkbacks during previews we would field these questions with gestures of mock horror, which would get a laugh and deflect the notion that the play needs to answer them; such humorous deflections are the play’s defense mechanism as well. But now that the play is open and my days are once again free for reflection, I can’t help but think that this question (which boiled down is essentially “Why do I need to watch this?”) deserves at least a scholarly deflection, if not an answer.
Before starting rehearsal I was visiting Manhattan. Whenever I would talk about “Irma Vep” with theatre people in New York, particularly within the gay community, the play seemed to hold, for them, a reverence and importance that it doesn’t share in the Midwest. Being a heterosexual, I have been a little squeamish in answering questions about the play’s importance to the gay community, but I know it is important, even though I would be hard pressed to point to anything substantive it says about gender or sexuality. A gay director friend of mine in New York was insistent that I really understand the biography of Ludlam and particularly his relationship with Everett Quinton who co-starred with him in “Irma Vep” before I, a dyslexic twenty-something from Denver whose nearest experience to cross dressing was putting my arm in the wrong shirt hole, was allowed to do the play. Quinton and Ludlam met casually on the street in a time of very mutable sexual boundaries, before the serious advent of AIDS, and their one-night-stand translated into a committed and sustained relationship that lasted until Ludlam’s death in 1987. It is one of the great love stories in New York Theatre history and “Irma Vep” is a celebration of it. I think this word “celebration” is particularly important in the understanding of the relevance and substance of this play. At a time when homosexuality was struggling to become a less marginalized part of the American landscape, Ludlam’s Theatre of The Ridiculous took the homosexual viewpoint out of the negative world of politics by choosing to celebrate queerness rather than defend it, indeed, by showing it needed no defense.
That the play makes a similar statement about theatricality is why it remains popular and important twenty-five years later. In a time when the theatre struggles to find its context in a world that offers so many forms of entertainment, I think it is a trap to believe that a play needs to justify its existence with substance. So many recent “plays of substance”, boiled down, seem only to be arguing that theatre has relevance and therefore deserves its continued existence. Irma Vep, which, if nothing else, is most certainly a celebration of theatricality, argues that there should not be such an argument. We don’t ask of every movie or piece of music that it fill our lives with meaning or batter us with substance, and I think it is dangerously narrow to make that a condition of live theatre. “Irma Vep”, with its high theatrical style and quick-change format, would be meaningless in any other medium, and from that distinction it draws its relevance. In a time where the ultimate goal for many plays is to be adapted into screenplays, the few pieces that rely wholly on their theatricality to function are even more important. Irma Vep doesn’t make an argument about why theatre is important; it celebrates the fact that there needn’t be such an argument.
The Mystery of Irma Vep runs Wednesday through Sunday until December 13
3 Responses to Why IRMA VEP?
Maybe part of the importance of this play is simply that it represents ways of being that typically go hidden. The blurring of gender roles (both elected and imposed) generally and crossdressing specifically have been central to gay identity for some time. Representing that on stage without it being a source of tension or plot development seems to me to be part of the aim of the play. As for addressing social issues in a play, I think you’re right in suggesting that a play doesn’t necesssarily need to do that. It seems to me that the primary purpose of art is not to make an argument so much as to make an impression. We seem to think something is more artful when the impression it makes is weighty and dark but music by people like John Coltrane shows that the impression can also be one of delight or playfullness. I think this play lands more on that side. However, this attempt to breakdown the strictness of gender with
out tension being at its center is an important task.
By Angel Y on December 10, 2009 at 4:23 pm
We saw the play during previews; the male half of “we” is no fan of plays with a homosexual theme; we stayed for the post play discussion. While this play may have been important to the homosexual community for some reason or another, at some time and place or another, that rationale for seeing it was meaningless to either of us. It was just a very very funny screwball comedy, very well played. I frankly do not remember anyone in the audience wondering why he or she had spent the evening on something so manic! In fact, we thought it had probably been scheduled as comic relief in uncertain times, whatever its historical significance may have been in theatre history.
By J. Ditkowsky on December 10, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Leave a Reply
To help prevent spam, comments will be submitted to a moderator before publishing.
After seeing this amazingly entertaining play last night, my partner and simply wished it were running longer so we could see it repeatedly.
We found it thoroughly engaging as entertainment - and surprisingly smart as parodies go. See it while you can!!
By Steve on December 10, 2009 at 3:52 pm